Agreed, but what can we do right? It's the primary reason I have the RME ADI2 DAC, solid EQ features.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Is EQ'ing headphones worth it?
- Thread starter Robbo99999
- Start date
Just after reading this thread I've had my very first experience with a very primitive equalization. I have a free vox player on my Mac, which comes with a 10 bands equalizer. Just followed a link posted in the first pages of this thread, which reports equalization related to the 10 bands frequencies ( Oratory 1990 needs a more sophisticated EQ I think). As I can't have access to my new Sennheiser HD58X right now and my Akg 141 are at repairing I just went to the page of the very cheap and "meh" sounding stock Apple EarPods I have with me and did the EQ. Absolutely couldn't have imagined such a result even on those basic earphones! Now my newbie question. This simple EQ on Vox just allows to set only one custom profile. It would be nice to have a player in which you store as many profiles as you want ( at least, more than just one). It would been nicer to have even an EQ with more options than 10. It would be even nicer if it could be possible to set sound profiles valid not just on a specific app, but to your entire system; like you set a profile for a specific headphone and it stands there trough different players you might use, or listening on the web.
Is it possible and how complicated does it get?
Is it possible and how complicated does it get?
It's all possible and very simple with these programs:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/equalizerapo
https://sourceforge.net/projects/peace-equalizer-apo-extension
Thanks! Anyway it’s running on Windows, while I’m using a Mac. Anything for OS?
There's a few options but I can't remember the names.
Sonarworks works with macOS. It's not free, though, and it's harder to make adjustments to the EQ profiles.
I've read about Sonarworks, but I'd really prefer something free and easy, though not at the same level.
I recently purchased a Beyer DT 880 and manually equalized it to sound exactly like my modded HD 700 which is matched to my loudness contour. I worked with a narrow bandpass filter, listening to white noise while moving the target frequency up and down and adjusting the perceived loudness to that of my reference (modded HD 700). Both headphones were level matched to 1 kHz and simultaneously fed with the same signal. The procedure took me one hour and a half, continuously putting both headphones on and off to compare the target frequencies, starting with 15 bands, then 31 bands, then fine tuning for the treble resonances.
It was quite a bit of effort. But the result is just fascinating, once again!
Listening to both white noise and music the timbre of both headphones is close to identical. Just evaluating the sound signature and quality it is even that close that I fear I could not tell the difference in a properly performed blind test. If I had to name a thing I would say that the HD 700 has maybe a tad more selectivity in the separation of instruments and pushes the soundstage just a tiny bit farther away from my head. That may be a consequence of the physical construction (say distance and angle of the drivers), maybe some narrower resonances in the upper range (being masked in the procedure above) leading to a different spatial perception, maybe a mixture of both, or just personal bias.
However that may be, after listening to both headphones being equalized to the same curve I don't think that there is any substantial difference between the DT 880 and the HD 700 that could justify any doubts on the quality of the Beyerdynamic. Unfortunately I don't own any top class references to verify those findings against a headphone of even higher tier. Still, having done the same procedure for models like the Audioquest Nighthawk or Beyer DT 1990 versus a much cheaper Superlux HD 681 in the past, I can conclude that perceived sound quality does predominantly depend on the specific shape of the frequency response. There is no doubt that some physical parameters like the openness of the housing, the size and placement of the driver or the kind of pads do predetermine what can or cannot be achieved with a specific design. You cannot equalize a bass-shy open-back model to a bass-heavy closed-back model and expect the same impact and control in bass response. Comparing apples to apples though, I think you can make them sound really close if not identical by putting some effort into the equalization based on your own peception.
I tried curves derived from the dummy head data by rtings, InnerFidelity, Oratory and others to render the performance of another headphone so many times. But to be honest, they completely suck at recreating what is being perceived when I actually put that model on my own head and compare it to the other one. There are just too many technical variables and listener-depended resonances going on that flaw this procedure IMO. Hence the reason why I started establishing my own curves based on what my own ears do hear.
To sum it all up:
EQ is key!
Regards
P48
It was quite a bit of effort. But the result is just fascinating, once again!
Listening to both white noise and music the timbre of both headphones is close to identical. Just evaluating the sound signature and quality it is even that close that I fear I could not tell the difference in a properly performed blind test. If I had to name a thing I would say that the HD 700 has maybe a tad more selectivity in the separation of instruments and pushes the soundstage just a tiny bit farther away from my head. That may be a consequence of the physical construction (say distance and angle of the drivers), maybe some narrower resonances in the upper range (being masked in the procedure above) leading to a different spatial perception, maybe a mixture of both, or just personal bias.
However that may be, after listening to both headphones being equalized to the same curve I don't think that there is any substantial difference between the DT 880 and the HD 700 that could justify any doubts on the quality of the Beyerdynamic. Unfortunately I don't own any top class references to verify those findings against a headphone of even higher tier. Still, having done the same procedure for models like the Audioquest Nighthawk or Beyer DT 1990 versus a much cheaper Superlux HD 681 in the past, I can conclude that perceived sound quality does predominantly depend on the specific shape of the frequency response. There is no doubt that some physical parameters like the openness of the housing, the size and placement of the driver or the kind of pads do predetermine what can or cannot be achieved with a specific design. You cannot equalize a bass-shy open-back model to a bass-heavy closed-back model and expect the same impact and control in bass response. Comparing apples to apples though, I think you can make them sound really close if not identical by putting some effort into the equalization based on your own peception.
I tried curves derived from the dummy head data by rtings, InnerFidelity, Oratory and others to render the performance of another headphone so many times. But to be honest, they completely suck at recreating what is being perceived when I actually put that model on my own head and compare it to the other one. There are just too many technical variables and listener-depended resonances going on that flaw this procedure IMO. Hence the reason why I started establishing my own curves based on what my own ears do hear.
To sum it all up:
EQ is key!
Regards
P48
I use AutoEQ for generating filters and matching headphone quite frequently. Its a mighty tool. But the output can only be as good as the input. My success with the generic data for over ear headphones was not that overwhelming so far. Having compared that to my subjective loudness matching there is simply no competition.
If done right, the loudness matching will beat any measurement. Even those made with the insitu technique (measuring the response right at the eardrum of the individual).
If done right, the loudness matching will beat any measurement. Even those made with the insitu technique (measuring the response right at the eardrum of the individual).
With a lot of patience.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2019
- Messages
- 424
- Likes
- 679
odyo
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2019
- Messages
- 636
- Likes
- 320
I was against the equalizer but really after having more experience i think people should aim buying low distortion good planar headphones without peaks/dips and eq it. Not fan of harman but it's a good starting point.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2019
- Messages
- 424
- Likes
- 679
ernestcarl
Major Contributor
While using my desktop and having easy access to DSP, sure! Why not?
When using a portable smart phone... eh, not nearly as often as I would like. Also, using separate streaming player apps makes it difficult/inconvenient to apply a universal EQ.
When using a portable smart phone... eh, not nearly as often as I would like. Also, using separate streaming player apps makes it difficult/inconvenient to apply a universal EQ.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2019
- Messages
- 424
- Likes
- 679
Do you use Android?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #199
With a lot of patience.
Last time I looked into and thought about loudness matching I think I concluded it was flawed. For a start you have to trust your ability to to actually be able to do it, and secondly the frequency response curve shouldn't be loudness matched across the whole frequency range right....I mean our ears aren't supposed to be sensitive to low bass frequencies and neither to high frequencies too, so with loudness matching wouldn't you just compensating for the deficits & injuries in your own hearing which is getting you further away from the "truth" of a real life experience, because real life auditory experiences are not frequency adjusted in loudness to match your personal hearing deficits....instead you adapt & live with those deficits? Or I'm thinking I'm missing some fundamental understanding of what loudness matching actually is?
I don't even know where to start. Are there any guides, tone files, pieces of software, etc. you recommend for loudness matching? If it's easier to just do web searches and figure it out from there, I'll do that.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2019
- Messages
- 424
- Likes
- 679
You might be missing a fundamental understanding of what neutral sound from headphones is. Organs in our ears, especially the pinna, make it so a neutral response isn't actually flat in the case of headphones. While I'm fuzzy on the subject (just know enough to pimp my cans well), this is due to various reflections, especially in the treble range, not being heard from headphones the same they would be heard from flat speakers.
You can get a better understanding of this by reading studies from Floyd Toole and Sean Olive.
So, with that said, the Harman Target and targets utilizing similar scientific context attempt to aim for neutral sound in accordance to popular preference, alongside measurements. Since not all ears are created equal, that's where loudness matching comes in.
Let's round it off with an example. Hypothetically, say a person has perfect hearing. In that case, loudness matching is not compensating for hearing deficiencies, rather, it is compensating for the shape and organ placement of their ear. Reference sound from headphones to the person with perfect hearing and a typically formed ear still wouldn't be flat.
Now, for the person with comparable hearing and an atypically formed ear, that's where loudness matching may have an advantage in certain respects over things like the Harman Target.
However, loudness matching in compensation for hearing deficiencies is also viable. You say it would get you further from the truth- nay, the hearing deficiencies themselves do.
With hearing deficiencies, you aren't exactly hearing the truth in "real life" either.
Last edited:
Similar threads
